The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-9012.htm
EJTD 37,3
Open learning within growing businesses Magnus Klofsten
298
Department of Management and Engineering and HELIX VINN Excellence Centre, Linko¨ping University, Linko¨ping, Sweden, and
Dylan Jones-Evans
Received 14 August 2012 Revised 9 January 2013 Accepted 9 January 2013
University of Wales, Cardiff, UK Abstract Purpose – Understanding the factors behind successful enterprise policy interventions are critical in ensuring effective programme development. The aim of this paper is to analyse an academic-industry initiative in Sweden developed to support knowledge-intensive businesses in expanding their operations. Design/methodology/approach – This paper describes a case study of a specific policy intervention to facilitate further business growth and development. Since 1986, 490 individuals from 194 companies have attended the Business Development Programme (BDP) organised by Linko¨ping University. Through analysing interviews with participants on the programme, the paper examines the origins and motivations behind its creation, management and development. Findings – This study finds that future policy interventions in enterprise development must cultivate an open style of learning, similar to the principles of open innovation, which engages directly with the participants, is based on a process of informality and flexibility, reflects the needs of the business and includes engaged programme leadership based on a successful entrepreneurial track record. Practical implications – The programme has succeeded through an informal, flexible and needs-orientated approach that essentially reflects the needs of the participating businesses. Originality/value – Interventions that are targeted towards supporting established businesses could help to create wealth and employment. However, understanding the factors behind such interventions is critical in ensuring that policymakers design the most relevant programmes to assist support businesses that have the potential to grow. Keywords Growth firms, Open learning, Training, Small business policy, Innovation, Sweden, Business development Paper type Case study
European Journal of Training and Development Vol. 37 No. 3, 2013 pp. 298-312 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2046-9012 DOI 10.1108/03090591311312750
Introduction The increasing importance of entrepreneurship in creating wealth and employment at both national and regional levels (Audretsch and Thurik, 2000; Acs and Storey, 2004; Von Bargen et al., 2003; Fritsch and Mueller, 2004; Van Stel et al., 2005) has led policymakers to focus on developing activities and programmes to assist the creation of new firms and the expansion of existing businesses and, from this, create a dynamic and competitive economy (Lundstro¨m and Stevenson, 2005; Reynolds et al., 2007; Norrman and Bager-Sjo¨gren, 2010).Not surprisingly, there has been a concomitant The authors want to thank all of the former participants of the BDP programme for their most valuable contribution to the study. The authors also acknowledge the financial contribution from the HELIX VINN Excellence Centre.
increase in the number of academic studies examining policy mechanisms developed to sustain enterprise. These researches have focussed predominantly on issues related to the early stages of new business development, such as new venture creation(Van der Sijde et al., 2002; Davidsson and Klofsten, 2003),entrepreneurial financing (Fredriksen et al., 1997; Winborg and Landstro¨m, 2001) and incubators for new firms (Mian, 1997; Bergek and Norrman, 2008).While there have been policy studies examining the importance of growth in companies (Khan and Cooper, 2001; Davidsson and Henrekson, 2002; Mason and Brown, 2013), there has been very little analysis of the programmes which focus on the post start-up stage of development when companies have become established and are seeking further growth (Gorman et al., 1997). In particular, as Patzelt and Shepherd (2009) point out, there have been few studies that have analysed the development of existing ventures which emerge within knowledge-intensive industries. The aim of this paper is to analyse a university-based programme based at Linkoping University in Sweden, which was developed to specifically support the growth and development of knowledge-intensive businesses. It will dissect the origins and motivations behind the creation of the programme, its management and development and finally, the key factors behind its success. The paper concludes by examining the relevance of this type of programme to enterprise policy. Policy issues for developing learning opportunities within growth firms Today, knowledge-intensive businesses are operating in an increasingly complex and changing environment, and in order to create and sustain innovation and establish competitive advantage, emerging businesses will need to develop a system which supports learning and knowledge-building, as both are central to future firm development (Sveiby, 1994; Lo´pes et al., 2006). Consequently, firms are prioritising their participation in training programmes which facilitate the supply of the necessary skills and competences required by managers, which can then lead to greater innovation and growth within the company (Ylinenpa¨a¨, 2004; Bergh, 2006). However, the content of such training programmes varies widely and focusses on areas as diverse as strategy and planning (Masurel and Kees, 2006), learning and motivation of employees and managers (Torrence, 1993; Monk, 1996; Clinton and Laurence, 2005) and relationship building with stakeholders, such as customers, finance providers, suppliers and competitors (Gibb, 1990; Ylinenpa¨a¨, 1997; Klofsten, 2008). In addition, the delivery of this training can be undertaken in a variety of ways, ranging from traditional methods, such as seminars, workshops and lectures, to non-classroom based approaches, such as online learning, e-learning and web-based training (Admiraal and Lockhorst, 2009; Kirwan et al., 2008). Despite a positive view of management training as a powerful tool for facilitating learning and increasing the competitive edge of firms (Gibb, 2000), some studies suggest that a discrepancy may exist, from the viewpoint of the participating companies, between the proposed content and the actual execution of training programmes. For example, many entrepreneurs often do not have the time or economic resources to participate in training programmes – a situation which is often exacerbated within small and immature firms (Matlay, 2000). Entrepreneurs also tend to have poor knowledge of the training available or, more significantly, the positive
Open learning
299
EJTD 37,3
300
effect that training can have on the company’s performance (Ylinenpa¨a¨, 2004). Other studies have shown that experienced entrepreneurs may have a more positive attitude towards training than those who are embarking on entrepreneurial activity for the first time, and will devote more time and resources to ensuring that the appropriate type of training is utilised to support their company’s development (Klofsten and Mikaelsson, 1996). More importantly, research has shown that entrepreneurs who are prepared to invest in the long-term development of the company through training and learning programmes are more likely to show greater entrepreneurial orientation and be more open-minded towards new opportunities for growth (Davidsson, 1989; Ylinenpa¨a¨, 1997). However, it has been argued that because of the heterogeneity of the small firm sector, company performance will only be impacted by training programmes if they are focussed on specific traits, such as firm size, the sector in which they operate and the stages of growth of the business (Gibb, 1990). The problems of the firm as it progresses through different stages of growth have been studied for many years (Greiner, 1972; Churchill and Lewis, 1983; Scott and Bruce, 1987; Kazanjian, 1988; Davidsson et al., 2002). On a more general level, those studies show that the degree of maturity and size over time creates different challenges and roles for the entrepreneur. For example, the founders often dominate young firms although as the firm grows, their competence diminishes and they may need to be complemented by other managers. This is especially the case within knowledge-intensive companies where a mixture of entrepreneurial, technological and managerial skills is often required for successful growth (Jones-Evans, 1996). If the business is to successfully develop from initiation to maturity, the founder will need to engage in professional leadership which involves the delegation of roles to other individuals both within the company and, potentially, to external actors (Adizes, 1988; Jones and Crompton, 2009). As a result, it is critical that it is not only the founder who participates in training programmes, but that managers within the company are also engaged in learning to ensure organisational cohesion and a common approach to managing the business. Therefore, any successful training programme, which addresses the issues facing growing businesses, must be targeted not only at the founder, but also at other senior members of staff within the firm. More critically, these programmes must develop learning methods which enables all participants to positively engage in training which benefits the development of the firm (Gibb, 1990; Ylinenpa¨a¨, 1997; Lo´pes et al., 2006). These results are also in line with recent research examining why SMEs participate in programmes for competence development and training (Kock et al., 2008; Ellstro¨m and Kock, 2009). More relevantly, these studies emphasise the interplay between external factors, such as competitive pressures, demand from customers and internal organisational conditions, not to mention the importance of how managers evaluate competence development and training. As discussed earlier, most research studies investigating enterprise training programmes have focussed predominantly on start-ups and the mechanisms that can be used to facilitate their success. However, several studies have shown that concentrating on start-ups may not be the most efficient approach regarding policy intervention, as it is the small number of businesses that grow quickly that create the majority of new jobs (Birch, 1979; Kirchhoff, 1994; Buss, 2002; Acs and Mueller, 2008; Henrekson and Johansson, 2010); thus, policymakers should focus predominantly on
growth firms instead of adopting a non-targeted approach and stimulating brand new businesses (Friar and Meyer, 2003; Wong et al., 2005; Autio, 2007). Therefore, policies should not only focus on encouraging start-ups, but should also include interventions that are targeted towards supporting those established businesses that have the potential to grow, creating wealth and employment. Comprehending the factors behind such interventions will be critical in ensuring that policymakers design the most relevant programmes to assist businesses that have the potential to expand. Methodology This paper describes a case study of a specific policy intervention to foster business growth and development. The Business Development Programme (BDP) at Linkoping University has been highly successful in enabling entrepreneurs within growing firms to evaluate their strategies and has encouraged a culture of self-learning that is sustainable over the long term. This research does not seek to evaluate the success of the programme in terms of any quantitative measure because it has been maintained that entrepreneurship training should not be evaluated on quantities. Instead, insights that are generated by a programme can hopefully be utilised by policymakers in different contexts (Klofsten et al., 2010). The authors of the paper have, as part of the continuous evaluation of the programme, met with participants regularly and have collected valuable qualitative data on the needs of potential entrepreneurs and, more importantly, how the programme fulfils those needs. Of course, it must be remembered that the results are influenced by the admission criteria for programme participants, which, in this case, are knowledge-intensive firms emerging from the post start-up stage of development. Since 1986, the Business Development Programme (BDP) has been offered by Linko¨ping University and SMIL (a network for small and medium-sized companies in Linko¨ping). Since the launch of BDP, 490 individuals from 194 companies have participated in 22 business development programmes. The concept has also been transferred to other university regions in Sweden, such as Stockholm, Umea˚, Uppsala and Va¨stera˚s. The programme has its roots in an environment which has encouraged the creation of an infrastructure to support the development of a knowledge-intensive business sector within Linko¨ping, and one which has increased interaction between academia and business at the core of its strategy. This began in the early 1980s when Linko¨ping University began to seek greater interactions with the community outside the university (Klofsten and Jones-Evans, 1996; Etzkowitz and Klofsten, 2005). At the same time, academics began to create opportunities for commercialisation of their knowledge through new company formation. This “spin out boom” resulted in the establishment of more than 40 companies between 1981 and 1984 with roots in the technology developed at the university (Klofsten and Jones-Evans, 2000). Simultaneously, a group of entrepreneurs from technology-based firms, together with academics at Linko¨ping University, established a new organisation known as SMIL (the Foundation for Business Development). The idea behind SMIL was to form a body to aid newly established companies within knowledge-based sectors, most of which were spin-outs from Linkoping University but also included firms from high technology companies and organisations in the region, such as Saab, Ericsson and the Swedish Defence Research Institute.
Open learning
301
EJTD 37,3
302
Initially, SMIL focussed its activities on stimulating network development by hosting breakfast meetings and seminars where lecturers, often from the management department, were invited to speak on subjects of current interest to the founders of young firms. In order to generate commitment and strong relations between entrepreneurs, firms wishing to participate in the different activities offered by SMIL had to apply for membership. In addition, it was stipulated that only two types of organisations could become members, namely small technology-based firms and entrepreneurship support organisations that could contribute to the activities of the foundation. SMIL has therefore focussed on creating activities which stimulate co-operation between academia and industry to develop the knowledge-intensive sectors within the Linko¨ping region. The synergies that have been generated from such activities have ensured that the real needs of the firms in SMIL’s network could be identified, clarified and transformed into actual support activities. As a direct result of this interaction with local companies, the first version of BDP was devised under the management of a group of leading entrepreneurs and university professors. Therefore, the BDP was established because of three key factors. The first is that there was an increased interest by the university in dealing with external issues, particularly the stimulation of knowledge-intensive business within the region. For example, as Etzkowitz and Klofsten (2005) note, an industrial liaison office was set up under a new office of external relations with a role to facilitate greater interactions between academia and industry. In addition, researchers within the Department of Management and Economics were expressing considerable interest in business development and entrepreneurial issues, and were actively engaging with new knowledge-intensive companies. Second, Linkoping experienced a growth in the number of technology-based firms emerging from the university sector, which then demanded support services to help them develop and grow ( Jones-Evans et al., 1999). Finally, the close collaboration between a newly established networking organisation (SMIL) and Linkoping University opened an opportunity to establish the programme and more importantly, to access potential client businesses whose founders helped to shape the first programme ( Jones-Evans and Klofsten, 1997). As various studies have noted, the training programmes that have the greatest impact on the development of businesses are those which reflect the needs of businesses and, more importantly, are developed to involve the entrepreneurs in an action learning context (Gibb, 1996; Johannisson, 1991). The work that led to the first BDP came through continuous discussions with leading entrepreneurs within the SMIL network and, following these consultations, the programme managers decided that the BDP should be arranged around the following cornerstones which, over time, became the foundation for the eventual success of the programme: . The target group should be knowledge-intensive firms that have left the start-up stage and are developing into sustainable and growing businesses. . The content delivered during the programme should be practically orientated and based on the actual business development needs of the participating entrepreneurs and firms. . The programme should be led by a senior entrepreneur who has a broad business experience and the necessary competence to advise on a range of different strategic and operational issues.
.
.
.
The execution of the programme should be built on group dynamics where the experience and competence of the participants are a crucial asset in achieving successful outcomes. In order to generate commitment, the programme should be funded predominantly by participants’ fees although they should not be too high so as to exclude younger businesses. The co-ordination of the programme should be undertaken by Linkoping University, which was seen to have the best administrative capacity for such a role. At the same time, it was important to show that policymakers saw BDP as an effective collaborative programme between SMIL and Linkoping University.
Much of the initial work was devoted to finding a leader for the programme, and the individual who was chosen for this task was someone with considerable experience in starting and managing businesses both nationally and internationally. This recruitment was exceptionally successful, and the individual became the leader of the programme, making a significant contribution to its success. While the programme was to be largely funded by participants’ fees, it was also given some financial support from the Swedish Government, which had made funds available at the time to support the education and training of entrepreneurs within established firms. Subsequent programmes have also been subsidised by government funds although the principle that the majority of the programme remains funded by the participants is still intact. Following a detailed analysis of the needs of SMIL members, the first programme was launched in 1986 with 20 firms participating and consisted of five one-day workshops which combined plenary sessions and groupwork with the companies. The feedback from the first participants on the programme was generally very positive. However, on reviewing the programme, it became clear that a group size of 20 companies was too large to ensure the quality of the programme and a detailed analysis of the individual problems faced by participating firms. Therefore, the number of firms, which were to participate in the programme, was reduced to a maximum of nine companies to ensure that greater resources could be devoted to network building between companies and with the programme leadership. The participating firms are exclusively recruited from the SMIL network and thus guaranteeing commitment and credibility for the programme. It also ensures that the programme is focussed on the specific needs of knowledge-intensive businesses, which are different to the more general small firm population ( Jones-Evans and Klofsten, 1997). The cost of participation in the programme is approximately 35,000 SEK (4,000 Euros) per company and added to these variable costs are travel and subsistence expenses to attend the programme. Each company, however, receives a subsidy of 40 per cent from the Swedish Government although the majority of the costs are borne by the participants. As discussed, a maximum of nine firms participates in each programme, as this has been shown to be the optimum size of the group for effective learning although each firm can be represented by up to three people. This is because evaluation of the early programmes showed that the presence of more than one participant from a company accelerates learning and ensures that any outcomes are implemented quickly following attendance on the programme.
Open learning
303
EJTD 37,3
304
The programme consists of three workshops, which take place over a period of twelve months. The first two workshops last for two days and normally take place within five months of each other. The final workshop is a one-day session towards the end of the 12-month process. Between these workshops, the firms undertake assignments, which are defined during each workshop. Firms also meet informally without any of the programme leaders being present. The first workshop focuses on presenting the firms and the individuals to each other. To ensure continuity and development, the firms are split into three groups that will work closely together during the entire programme. The composition of the group is crucial and takes into consideration factors, such as the personal chemistry between the participants, types of problems faced by the companies that will be solved during the programme and the experience level of the individuals. Therefore, an optimal group consists of individuals who complement each other in terms of experience and expertise, can work together collaboratively on a range of different issues and whose firms have quite similar problems. Importantly, the philosophy underpinning the programme is flexibility and ensuring an open style of learning. The content of both the plenary sessions and the workshops can, in some instances, be immediate and reflect the specific issues generated by particular businesses in the programme. However, the foundation of the whole programme tends to evolve around a range of those common problems, such as strategic choice for growth, ownership strategies, motivation and reward systems, financing and strategic alliances. The BDP is therefore an excellent laboratory in which to examine which particular factors can lead to successful learning within growth companies, particularly those emerging from knowledge-intensive sectors. Given that the participating companies interest this paper in the processes which lead to successful learning, the best approach to be adopted is qualitative interviews with participants in the programme. This is normally the methodology adopted by other studies in examining business support programmes ( Johannisson, 2007; Brulin et al., 2009). Since 1986, the programme has been regularly evaluated by Linkoping University in order to improve its structure, content and process utilising broad open-ended questions in order to encourage respondents who had participated in the programme to provide a full and free narrative of their experiences. Interview probes were used to clarify statements and their meaning and to elaborate on the participant’s experiences and judgements on the transfer process and its impact. The evaluation also employed aspects of the “critical incidence” technique (Polit and Hungler, 1999) to ask respondents about incidences which impacted on their learning during the business development programme. The interview findings from all of the evaluations undertaken since the programme started in 1986 have been systemised, with results and conclusions validated with the interview partners who have proofread the documentation of the interviews and the final version of the paper.
Results Eight key success factors have been identified from interviews with representatives from the 194 companies, which have taken part in the BDP.
Engaged programme leadership The entrepreneur who has been appointed as programme leader has, according to the participating firms, become the central figure in the success of the programme. Not only did he bring considerable wisdom and expertise to the process, but he also shared his experiences of being an entrepreneur and dealing with different types of company cultures, which was advantageous to participants who had little contact with other businesses. His openness and willingness to share his experience established the culture of the complete programme. Participants felt it was important that the programme leadership not only had broad experience and an understanding of building companies, but also had the social capability to understand different personalities in the programme. Therefore, not only was the programme leader able to fully participate with companies, but he had an innate ability to understand their needs and offer suggestions for solutions. Another important issue was the richness of practical and real examples from both the programme leader and the other participants. This gave those in the programme a number of potential solutions, which could be applied to their own business problems. Openness between participating entrepreneurs The participants shared the view that openness was one of the most important parts of the programme and accelerated the process of learning for individuals, especially with regard to how to approach and solve different challenges within different company settings. During workshops, various participants who discussed potential outcomes in a friendly but constructively critical manner tested ideas regarding a number of operational issues. However, this openness also meant that discussions were kept within the programme and companies had an “oral agreement” not to pass on anything outside the group. Finally, the process of companies working together was made easier by the open atmosphere established in the programmes, which were arranged in relaxing and remote locations away from the day-to-day problems and issues faced by most of the participants. Willingness of companies to share ideas and experiences When the programme was first initiated, none of the companies had any experience of sharing their ideas with other businesses. However, a number of participants became involved in more than one programme and as their business experienced matured, they were able to pass this on to new participants, a characteristic which came to embody the co-operative nature of the interaction between businesses enrolled in the programme. Some of the participants, particularly those who had attended several programmes, considered that the best way to learn and gain new insights was through teaching others. High level of company engagement As the companies participating in the programme were emerging from knowledge-intensive sectors, it was not surprising that some found themselves working alongside potential competitors. However, there was a general agreement that even when firms are operating in the same sector, they can both gain by talking to each other and, in some instances, work together to solve common problems. Indeed, most of the companies had similar challenges that were independent of the sector from which
Open learning
305
EJTD 37,3
306
they came. In some cases, problems brought up by one company had already been recognised and solved by another company. This made the discussions very real and inspiring for the whole group. Even the presence of several competitors helped to create more market opportunities for the individual companies, with competitors working together to solve common problems. This is because participants appreciate that the prerequisite for gaining any insight and practical results is an open atmosphere, trust and respect for each other. Tolerance of all opinions when discussing problems The learning process undertaken within the programme meant that companies had to work through critical management issues, which benefited from the coaching available and, more importantly, the opportunity to meet company owners facing similar challenges. Therefore, all ideas and thoughts put forward by participants were thoroughly scrutinised and analysed to develop the most appropriate solution to a company’s problems. This openness, combined with respect of the other participants’ knowledge and experience, has lifted discussions to a much higher level than originally anticipated. In addition, those who had taken part in several programmes and had grown their company through this period were encouraged to support participants from new entrepreneurial companies in the start-up phase. Informality and programme flexibility Prior to programme attendance, the majority of participants had more formal training experience that largely involved a set curriculum that was taught in a classroom style. The nature of the BDP meant that the programme does not have a fixed “toolbox” and would adjust the content according to the outcomes of discussions that would take place during the group sessions. Therefore, any plenary session would reflect the discussions that had taken place between companies and focus on the situational issues that had arisen as a result of the workshops. The strength of the plenary sessions is that they are mainly focussed on real-world examples experienced personally by the programme leader. This contrasts with the normal classroom style of training found in universities and other training programmes. However, the success of this style of training is very dependent on the leadership to both understand and have experience of the problems arising so that the discussions are relevant to the needs of the companies. Needs-oriented processes of programme Despite the involvement of Linkoping University, the participants welcomed the opportunity to solve problems that were directly related to practical issues around business ownership, such as “How does a client think?”, “What do you take into consideration to reach a good business deal?” Companies were able to take the knowledge to inform critical decisions, such as the structure of the board of directors, development of a new salary system, outsourcing activities and the reinforcement of financial competences. To many participants, this was one of the key advantages of the programme, namely sharing and discussing different experiences and returning to their company with a wider understanding of running their business. The collective competence and experience of the academic programme organisers, the programme leader and all of the company participants meant that there was always relevant
real-world knowledge and experience present among several participants to give valuable insight and help in the discussions. As a result of this needs-driven approach, the programme did not need a preset agenda for the meetings. Such a flexible process means that individual participants often change their opinion regarding their companies of the most pressing needs after constructive critique and insight from the other participants. Having peer entrepreneurs with a critical eye and an open mind makes it difficult for any participant to conceal any issues that they do not want to deal with. Continuous learning by participating companies One of the important outcomes from participation in the programme is the sustainability of the learning process by individuals and companies. This can take the form of increased self-confidence and self-evaluation by the participants within the firms, an extended and engaged network of people that can be used in the future by the company (with people continuing to meet and learn from each other), and the use of new methods that can be used to continue the development work within the organisation. By bringing together people with similar problems and issues who normally would not have met at all to discuss their issues in such detail and with open minds, new opportunities are created for future collaborations and valuable network building. As a result, the format of the programme has led to a strong network and informal contacts between the participants, and the process of engaging in sharing knowledge and helping other people has become an important self-development tool for participants both from a personal and professional aspect. Concluding remarks There has been considerable interest from policymakers in determining the factors which can lead to more effective support to companies, especially those that can grow quickly and create employment and prosperity within local communities. Despite this, there seems to be only a limited number of actual policy interventions that are focussed on meeting the needs of existing business owners (Gorman et al., 1997). This paper has examined a specific case study of a programme that is focussed on supporting the development of knowledge-based companies that have emerged from the early stage of business development and are looking to expand their operations and develop their potential for expansion. Through evaluations of participants’ experiences of the programme since 1986, this study has provided a unique insight into the mechanisms which have resulted in a successful policy intervention that is specifically targeted at supporting the growth and development of established businesses. What should be of interest to both academics and policymakers is the fact that the programme has succeeded through an informal, flexible and needs-orientated approach that essentially reflects the needs of the participating businesses. It has also developed a learning style which encourages co-operation and collaboration, even by competing businesses. In this respect, it mirrors the philosophy espoused by Chesbrough (2003) with respect to the concept of open innovation, where firms use external ideas as well as internal ideas to advance their technology. In this case, entrepreneurial managers utilise external advice, both from other participants and the programme leaders, to generate specific solutions to challenges faced by the businesses. This open style of learning is in
Open learning
307
EJTD 37,3
308
contrast to the majority of business support programmes, which normally utilise a top-down and structured approach involving experts giving advice and support rather than the participants devising their own remedies to specific problems (Sullivan, 2000; De Faoite et al., 2004). Such organisational learning has been catalogued as being a distinguishing feature of growth firms (Hansen and Hamilton, 2011). In addition to open learning, another key factor in the success of the programme has been the engagement of a successful entrepreneurial leader who has acted as the animateur, who stimulates interactions between the companies and facilitates solutions to specific problems. While a number of studies have discussed the importance of utilising successful entrepreneurs in terms of leading support programmes (Krueger, 1993; Hytti and O’Gorman, 2004), there is little evidence of any widespread engagement with individuals who have the necessary experience and expertise to make a significant intervention and, more importantly, have a successful commercial track record that ensures trust and respect from those in the programme. Therefore, any future policy interventions in enterprise development must develop an open style of learning which engages directly with the participants, is based on a process of informality and flexibility, reflects the needs of the business and, finally, includes engaged programme leadership based on a successful entrepreneurial track record. References Acs, Z. and Storey, D. (2004), “Introduction: entrepreneurship and economic development”, Regional Studies, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 871-7. Acs, Z.J. and Mueller, P. (2008), “Employment effects of business dynamics: mice, gazelles and elephants”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 85-100. Adizes, I. (1988), Corporate Lifecycles: How and Why Corporations Grow and Die and What to Do about It, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Admiraal, W. and Lockhorst, D. (2009), “E-learning in small and medium-sized enterprises across Europe: attitudes towards technology, learning and training”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 743-67. Audretsch, D.B. and Thurik, A.R. (2000), “Capitalism and democracy in the 21st century: from the managed to the entrepreneurial economy”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 10 Nos 1-2, pp. 17-34. Autio, E. (2007), GEM 2007 High-Growth Entrepreneurship Report, Babson College, Wellesley, MA. Bergek, A. and Norrman, C. (2008), “Incubator best practice: a framework”, Technovation, Vol. 28 Nos 1-2, pp. 20-8. Bergh, P. (2006), “Interorganisatoriska la¨randena¨tverk fo¨r chefer fra˚n sma˚ och medelstora fo¨retag”, licentiate thesis,FE-publikationer 2006:184, Umea˚ University, Umea˚. Birch, D.L. (1979), The Job Generation Process, MIT Programme on Neighborhood and Regional Change, Cambridge, MA. Brulin, G., Sjo¨berg, K. and Svensson, L. (2009), “Gemensam kunskapsbildning fo¨r regional tillva¨xt”, Arbetsmarknad & Arbetsliv, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 61-74. Buss, T.F. (2002), “Emerging high-growth firms and economic development policy”, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 17-19.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003), “The era of open innovation”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 35-41.
Open learning
Churchill, N.C. and Lewis, V.L. (1983), “The five stages of small business growth”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 30-41. Clinton, O.L. and Laurence, S.F. (2005), “Management training: benefits and lost opportunities”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 25-30. Davidsson, P. (1989), “Continued entrepreneurship and small firm growth”, PhD Dissertation, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm. Davidsson, P. and Henrekson, M. (2002), “Determinants of the prevalance of start-ups and high-growth firms”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 81-104. Davidsson, P. and Klofsten, M. (2003), “The business platform: developing an instrument to gauge and assist the development of young firms”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 1-26. Davidsson, P., Kirchhoff, B., Hatemi, A. and Gustavsson, H. (2002), “Empirical analysis of business growth factors using Swedish data”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 332-49. De Faoite, D., Henry, C., Johnston, K. and van der Sijde, P. (2004), “Entrepreneurs’ attitudes to training and support initiatives: evidence from Ireland and The Netherlands”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 440-8. Ellstro¨m, P-E. and Kock, H. (2009), “Competence development in the workplace: concepts, strategies, and effects”, in Illeris, K. (Ed.), International Perspectives on Competence Development. Developing Skill and Capabilities, Routledge, London. Etzkowitz, H. and Klofsten, M. (2005), “The innovative region: toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development”, R&D Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 243-55. Fredriksen, O¨., Olofsson, C. and Wahlbin, C. (1997), “Are venture capitalists firefighters? A study of the influence and impact of venture capital firms”, Technovation, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 503-11. Friar, J. and Meyer, M. (2003), “Entrepreneurship and start-ups in the Boston region: factors differentiating high-growth ventures from micro-ventures”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 145-52. Fritsch, M. and Mueller, P. (2004), “Effects of new business formation on regional development over time”, Regional Studies, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 961-75. Gibb, A.A. (1990), “Design effective programmes for encouraging the small business start-up process”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 17-25. Gibb, A.A. (1996), “Entrepreneurship and small business management: can we afford to neglect them in the twenty-first century business school?”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 309-21. Gibb, A.A. (2000), “SME policy, academic research and the growth of ignorance, mythical concepts, myths, assumptions, rituals and confusions”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 13-35. Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997), “Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten-year literature review”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 56-77. Greiner, L.E. (1972), “Evolution and revolution as organisations grow”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 37-46.
309
EJTD 37,3
310
Hansen, B. and Hamilton, R.T. (2011), “Factors distinguishing small firm growers and non-growers”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 278-94. Henrekson, M. and Johansson, D. (2010), “Gazelles as job creators: a survey and interpretation of the evidence”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 227-44. Hytti, U. and O’Gorman, C. (2004), “What is ‘enterprise education’? An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries”, Education þ Training, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 11-23. Johannisson, B. (1991), “University training for entrepreneurship: Swedish approaches”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 67-82. Johannisson, B. (2007), “Enacting local economic development-theoretical and methodological challenges”, Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 7-26. Jones, O. and Crompton, H. (2009), “Enterprise logic and small firms: a model of authentic entrepreneurial leadership”, Journal of Strategy and Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 329-51. Jones-Evans, D. (1996), “Technical entrepreneurship, strategy and experience”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 15-39. Jones-Evans, D. and Klofsten, M. (1997), Technology, Innovation and Enterprise – the European Experience, Macmillan, London. Jones-Evans, D., Klofsten, M., Andersson, E. and Pandya, D. (1999), “Creating a bridge between university and industry in small European countries: the role of the Industrial Liaison Office”, R&D Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 47-56. Kazanjian, R.K. (1988), “Relation of dominant problems to stages of growth in technology-based new ventures”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 257-79. Khan, Z. and Cooper, M. (2001), “Managing training in SMEs for holistic high performance”, in Oakey, R., Groen, A., van der Sijde, P. and Cook, G. (Eds), New Technology-based Firms in the New Millennium, Permagon, Oxford, pp. 104-26. Kirchhoff, B.A. (1994), Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capitalism, Praeger, Westport, CT. Kirwan, P.M., van der Sijde, P. and Klofsten, M. (2008), “Supporting high-tech companies: using the business platform as a practical instrument”, International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 48-65. Kock, H., Gill, A. and Ellstro¨m, P.-E. (2008), “Why do small enterprises participate in a programme for competence development?”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 181-94. Klofsten, M. (2008), “Supporting academic enterprise: a case study of an entrepreneurship programme”, in Oakey, R., Groen, A., van der Sijde, P. and Cook, G. (Eds), New Technology-based Firms at the New Millennium, Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp. 53-67. Klofsten, M. and Jones-Evans, D. (1996), “Stimulation of technology-based small firms – a case study of university-industry co-operation”, Technovation, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 187-93. Klofsten, M. and Jones-Evans, D. (2000), “Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe: the case of Sweden and Ireland”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 299-309. Klofsten, M. and Mikaelsson, A.-S. (1996), “Support of small business firms: entrepreneurs: views of the demand and supply side”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 417-32. Klofsten, M., Heydebreck, P. and Jones-Evans, D. (2010), “Transferring good practice beyond organisational borders”, Regional Studies., Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 791-9.
Krueger, N. (1993), “The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 5-21. Lo´pes, S.P., Peo´n, J.M.M. and Orda´s, C.J.V. (2006), “Human resource management as a determining factor in organisational learning”, Management Learning, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 215-39. Lundstro¨m, A. and Stevenson, L. (2005), Entrepreneurship Policy: Theory and Practice, Springer, New York, NY. Mason, C. and Brown, R. (2013), “Creating good public policy to support high-growth firms”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 211-25. Masurel, E. and Kees, M. (2006), “Life cycle characteristics of small professional service firms”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 461-73. Matlay, H. (2000), “Training and the small firm”, in Carter, S. and Jones-Evans, D. (Eds), Enterprise and Small Business, Prentice Hall, Harlow, pp. 323-36. Mian, S.A. (1997), “Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: an integrative framework”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 251-85. Monk, R. (1996), “The motivation of managers for training”, Management Development Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 26-32. Norrman, C. and Bager-Sjo¨gren, L. (2010), “Entrepreneurship policy to support new innovative ventures: is it effective?”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 602-19. Patzelt, H. and Shepherd, D.A. (2009), “Strategic entrepreneurship at universities: Academic entrepreneurs’ assessment of policy programmes”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 319-40. Polit, D.F. and Hungler, B.P. (1999), Nursing Research: Principles and Methods, 6th ed., Lippincott, Philadelphia, PA. Reynolds, P., Storey, D.J. and Westhead, P. (2007), “Cross-national comparisons of the variation in new firm formation rates”, Regional Studies, Vol. 41, Supplement 1, pp. 123-36. Scott, M. and Bruce, R. (1987), “Five stages of growth in small business”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 45-52. Sullivan, R. (2000), “Entrepreneurial learning and mentoring”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 160-75. Sveiby, K.-E. (1994), “Towards a knowledge perspective on organisation”, PhD dissertation, University of Stockholm, Stockholm. Torrence, D. (1993), “Motivating trainees to learn”, Training and Development, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 55-9. Van der Sijde, P., Karnebeek, S. and Van Benthem, J. (2002), “The impact of a university spin-off programme. The case of NTBFs established through TOP”, in Oakey, R., During, W. and Kauser, S. (Eds), New Technology-based Firms at the New Millennium, Pergamon, Amsterdam. Van Stel, A., Carree, M. and Thurik, R. (2005), “The effect of entrepreneurial activity on national economic growth”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 311-21. Von Bargen, P., Freedman, D. and Pages, E.R. (2003), “The rise of the entrepreneurial society”, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 315-24. Winborg, J. and Landstro¨m, H. (2001), “Financial bootstrapping in small businesses: examining small business managers’ resource acquisition behaviours”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 235-54.
Open learning
311
EJTD 37,3
312
Wong, P., Ho, Y. and Autio, E. (2005), “Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: evidence from GEM data”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 335-50. Ylinenpa¨a¨, H. (1997), “Managing competence development and acquisition in small manufacturing firms”, PhD dissertation, Lulea˚ Technical University, Lulea˚. Ylinenpa¨a¨, H. (2004), “If management can be learned, can learning be managed? Reflections on HEI-based management training in smaller firms”, International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 507-24. Further reading Acs, Z., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D.B. and Carlsson, B. (2009), “The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 15-30. Bosma, N. and Schutjens, V. (2009), “Mapping entrepreneurial activity and entrepreneurial attitudes in European regions”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 191-213. Gibb, A.A. and Scott, M. (1986), “Understanding small firms growth”, in Scott, M., Gibb, A.A., Lewis, J. and Faulkner, T. (Eds), Small Business Growth and Development, Gower, London. Krueger, N.F. and Brazeal, D.V. (1994), “Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 91-104. Norrman, C. and Klofsten, M. (2008), “Seed funding for innovative ventures: a survey of selection mechanisms of a public support scheme”, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 11-19. Oakey, R.P. (1984), High Technology Small Firms, Pinter, London. Peterman, N.E. and Kennedy, J. (2003), “Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 129-44. Storey, D.J. (2003), “Entrepreneurship, small and medium sized enterprises and public policies”, in Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D.B. (Eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 473-511. About the authors: Magnus Klofsten is a Full Professor and the Founding Director of Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (CIE) at Linko¨ping University, Sweden. Magnus Klofsten is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected] Dylan Jones-Evans is a Professor and Director of Enterprise and Innovation, University of Wales, UK.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
